Whatever the actual political motivations of this new effort, military force is unlikely to solve Somalia's Problems

An al-Shabaab soldier carries his gun in southern Mogadishu / Reuters

When political leaders call for the application of military force, it
is a useful to assess the intended political and military objectives.
Quite often, those objectives are reactionary, ephemeral, or
unachievable given the resources committed and the political will of
decision makers. The unexpected invasion by Kenyan forces into Somalia to
defeat the notorious militant group, al-Shabaab, offers such an
opportunity to analyze the motives and potential outcomes of this use of
force.

On October 16, government spokesperson Alfred Mutua said Kenyan troops are "pursuing al-Shabaab across the border." A few days later, he claimed that the Kenyan military would "track down and dismantle the al-Shabaab." Meanwhile, an anonymous Kenyan official declared,
"They're going all the way to Kismayo [an al-Shabaab-controlled port
155 miles from the Kenyan border]. We're going to clear the Shabaab
out."

The rapid escalation of military objectives leads to another question: why exactly did Kenya invade Somalia?

The invasion was initially justified as a response to three
kidnappings of westerners in northern Kenya over the past month. Two of
those kidnapping attempts resulted in the deaths of a fifty-eight year
old British tourist and a sixty-six year old disabled French tourist.

It is understandable that Kenya would seek to protect its tourist industry, which has seen its revenues grow
by one-third to $737 million since the post-election violence of 2008.
Moreover, the specific threat to Westerners is concerning since they
make up the overwhelming majority of tourists who vist Kenya.

However, yesterday Mr. Mutua admitted
that the kidnapping rationale was actually a "good launchpad," and that
plans for the invasion had "been in the pipeline for a while." Another
anonymous senior Kenyan official added:
"This isn't about tourism. This is about our long-term development
plan. Kenya cannot achieve economically what it wants with the situation
the way it is in Somalia."

What is the likelihood of successfully achieving the intended objectives?

The strength of al-Shabaab militants, who are suspected of kidnapping Western tourists, ranges from 3,000 to an unbelievably specific 14,426.
In August, al-Shabaab withdrew from Mogadishu to avoid direct combat
with the 8,000 AMISOM troops stationed there. Since then, al-Shabaab has
re-focused its insurgent activities against the Transitional Federal
Government and international aid agencies to the west and south of the
capital. The UN Secretary General's latest report on Somalia noted
that al-Shabaab "maintained a significant presence in the [Gedo and
Juba] regions" of southern Somalia bordering Kenya. The report also
correctly predicted that "al-Shabaab's use of terrorist tactics and
asymmetric warfare is likely to increase."

Within less than two weeks of fighting, approximately 1,500 Kenyan
troops backed by tanks and helicopter gunships--with the support of some
Somali militias--have captured Shabaab-controlled towns and forced the
insurgents to temporarily disperse. However, due to heavy seasonal
rains, the logistical support required to sustain and advance Kenyan
troops has become overwhelmed. Given the relatively modest commitment of
forces, as well as the stated opposition
to the invasion by the internationally-recognized Somali President,
Sharif Sheik Ahmed, it is inconceivable that Kenyan forces will
permanently "clear out" al-Shabaab, much less prevent their return.

What support is Kenya receiving from the United States?

Initially, many believed that Kenya coordinated its invasion with the
Pentagon, in a similar fashion as Ethiopia in December 2006, when the
United States provided detailed intelligence, military training, and
naval support. This perception was further reinforced when the U.S.
ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration, told the Financial Times: "We are
looking to see how, as an ally in this conflict on terrorism, can we
help the Kenyans."

However, several U.S. officials have explicitly denied coordination
with the Kenyan military or any contribution of direct military support.
An unnamed senior U.S. official noted the absence of "U.S. military strikes in Somalia at all recently." The State Department clarified the official U.S. position on October 25, stating: "The United States is not participating in Kenya's current operation in Somalia."

Over the past three decades of civil war in Somalia, the
international community has been consistently allured by the use of
military force to "solve" the myriad problems related to
humanitarianism, piracy, terrorism, and--most recently--tourism. Although
all attempts thus far have failed, it hasn't prevented the idea from
resurfacing.

In late 2008, the Bush administration debated using naval cruise
missiles and drone strikes against on-shore bases in Somalia with the
intended objective of ending the persistent problem of piracy. When
asked his opinion of such options, Vice Admiral William Gortney,
then-commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, warned:
"I see people trying to look for an easy military solution to a problem
that demands a nonkinetic solution." When assessing Kenyan objectives
in Somalia, history repeats itself.

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.